![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... But, without the weapons that they're probably not going to find because they don't exist, how badly could those programs have injured anybody? Today not all In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and go back into production of WMD and the missiles to carry them who knows ? The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and apparently will continue to suffer. Is that going to be the next empty rationale for assaulting a despicable government? It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ? Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice that it hasn't, for some strange reason. Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give your guys a hand and lend you some moral support. George Z. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message In 5 years time when the sanctions have been lifted and Iraq can buy all the components it wants and go back into production of WMD and the missiles to carry them who knows ? The same things that happened during the past five years could have happened in the next five years, without either of our countries having had to have suffered the loss of a single life. I'm not convinced that your pessimistic view of the future is anywhere near accurate, and certainly not enough to satisfy me as being worth the number of dead and maimed we have suffered up to now and apparently will continue to suffer. I think the sanctions were about to be broken. Russia, France, Germany and a significant part of US opinion was starting to regard them as misdirected against innocent Iraqis. The regime was largely unhampered by them, and in fact, was enriching itself on the limited commondities. It wasn't until US intentions to go to war became clear that suddenly, sanctions were good and should "be given time" to work. Too many interests in too many countries in letting Saddam out from under the UN, for them to have lasted. It doesnt sound that empty to me, would you prefer to wait until they were firing test missiles like the DPRK ? Yes, I would, because the thing may blow up on the pad, or it may suffer one of countless setbacks that might prevent it from ever leaving the ground. IAC, if that's the criteria, our war with them should have started already, but I notice that it hasn't, for some strange reason. I wonder if any of the Bush critics *really* would support a war, or even more agressive actions against NK? It's a *much* more formidable country militarily than Iraq probably ever was. I don't believe for a minute that Dean or Kennedy or any of the Democratic (or Republican) critics of the war would even think of seriously threatening NK with force. Yet we keep hearing them tell us how much more dangerous NK is and our efforts should be put there. Yes, I still think it's an empty rationale. We can't make war with every country we don't like just because we are fearful of their intentions. If we That's absolutely true. I've come to the belief that we should simply wait until the "fearful intentions" are actually demonstrated, before action is taken. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (most likely civilians) will die by waiting, but the intent will be clear, and whether anyone else likes our reaction or not won't matter a whit to the American people. have to do that, we're pretty much fully engaged and committed in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment, so how about you guys taking the lead in North Korea and China.....I'm sure we can find a division or two of troops to send over to give your guys a hand and lend you some moral support. So are you actually in support of military operations against this more dangerous to US than Iraq, North Korea? I'd be very surprised to see you actually supporting a war against NK, especially if the current casualty rate in Iraq is considered too high. Can you imagine the casualty rates per week against NK? SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poland: French Missile Report Was Wrong | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 8 | October 7th 03 10:54 PM |
Mk 84 iron bomb version with depleted uranium? | MCN | Military Aviation | 8 | October 3rd 03 01:56 AM |
AIRCRAFT MUNITIONS - THE COBALT BOMB | Garrison Hilliard | Military Aviation | 1 | August 29th 03 09:22 AM |